Road’s End residents oppose cottage-style housing proposal

The project’s developers describe it as a response to the needs of the market; local homebuilders are becoming more interested in the style due to the rising costs of both housing and land, especially in the already-developed parts of the county.

“Land prices are higher, so we’re trying to provide housing that’s affordable at the lower end of the market,” said Stoneridge Development co-founder Derek Boe.

“It’s a quality product at an affordable price,” added co-founder Luke Jolma.

But the project has faced objections from several neighbors, who voiced their concerns at the project application public hearing on Nov. 8. The unofficial group spent the next two weeks trying to bring more attention to the project, and 17 neighbors gathered for a community meeting on Nov. 20 to plan their next steps.

Their concerns relate primarily to traffic and parking; the neighborhood’s segment of Northeast 62nd Avenue is only just wide enough for two cars to pass and has no curbs, paved shoulders or sidewalks. Several neighbors recounted stories of clipped mailboxes and other traffic incidents that have already taken place on the narrow street. They argued that the neighborhood is already facing rising congestion, especially with the recent modifications to state Highway 500, which reduced their access from the south.

Nature of change

The other issue has to do with the way the cottages might change the housing styles of the neighborhood. The cottages are an allowed use under the neighborhood’s R 1-6 zoning, but nearly all of the surrounding lots have been built out with single-family homes, and the neighbors say they’re skeptical that homebuyers will be interested in the cottage model.

“Most people on the street, when the parents sell the house, the kids buy it,” nearby resident Michael McKedy said at the community meeting. “(This proposed development) is a glorified apartment. Within seven to 10 years, every one of those places is going to be a rental.”

The group describes the situation as an example of the kinds of density changes that existing county neighborhoods can expect as Clark County continues to grow and developers search for new housing approaches.

“If this project passes here, this is going to be used everywhere in Clark County,” said Marinela Buzas, who lives directly across the street from the project site. “Residential (zoning) would be changed forever.”

The group members stress that they’ve always expected the site to be developed at some point; their only objection is to the sheer number of homes in the project.

The neighbors also reached out to outgoing Clark County Councilor Jeanne Stewart, who has been a vocal proponent of preserving Clark County’s lower-density neighborhoods. Stewart voted against a January council resolution aimed at promoting several underused forms of housing, including cottages, although she said her objection was primarily because the final version did not include an owner-occupancy requirement for Accessory Dwelling Units.

Stewart said she didn’t specifically object to the cottage housing portion of the council resolution, but she said the Northeast 62nd Avenue project exemplifies her concerns about adding cottages to some of the county’s existing neighborhoods. She said she thought the neighbors’ concerns sounded reasonable.

“Is there a need for housing — affordable housing? Absolutely, because the market has skyrocketed,” she said. “My concern has been, how do we get affordable housing while we protect the quality of low-density neighborhoods? And I’m not sure that mixing them together so closely and so abruptly is a good idea.”

Land Use Hearings Examiner Daniel Kearns oversaw the public hearing and rendered his verdict in a report last week. In his decision, he acknowledged and did not dispute the neighbors’ arguments about the character of the surrounding houses, but he said that project was nonetheless within the parameters of the county code.

“Existing noncompliant development patterns cannot thwart the planned zones and densities,” he wrote. “The Board of County Councilors has made the policy decision to increase affordable housing by allowing smaller sized units at a much higher density than the base zone provides.”

Any applicant who testified at the public hearing has standing to either appeal the decision to the county Superior Court or submit a motion for reconsideration, provided that they do so within 14 days.

The neighbors considered the possibility of an appeal at their Nov. 20 meeting, but several expressed reluctance due to the required time and potential legal costs. Instead, the group agreed that it would most likely try to focus on raising awareness about Clark County housing policy and its impacts on low-density neighborhoods.